How much money was awarded in case 5031109?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $253.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5031109?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5031109?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11287245-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5031109?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $253.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5031109?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5031109?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11287245-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 95 Olsen Avenue, Hillsborough, Auckland 1042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5031109 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5031109 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5031109 — net $280.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to the oven	$253.00	Repairs to the oven
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$280.00
Bond	$2,792.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$280.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

Kamaljit Singh and Emereency Khyreim to pay [The landlord/s] $280.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,792.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $280.00 Kamaljit Singh and Emereency Khyreim: $2,512.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

There is a claim for replacement carpet. The landlord’s insurer agreed to pay for new carpet, less an excess in every room. The claim is for $3500. I note that where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The tenants do not agree to the claim.

This is the landlord’s claim to prove. He has provided me with a property condition report from the start of the tenancy and six photos of the stained carpet taken at the end of the tenancy. I do not have any photos of whole rooms to provide context. I do not know if the photos are of six different rooms. I do not accept that the insurer paying out is proof the tenant caused careless or intentional damage because I do not have a copy of the report from the insurance assessor. I am not persuaded by these six photos that the tenant should pay for replacement carpet. This claim is dismissed.

There is a claim for repairs to an oven. The landlord said there was intentional damage. The tenant replied that the glass shattered while cooking but this was never reported to the landlord. It seems most likely to me there was careless or intentional damage and the tenants should pay for the repair.

There is a claim for repairs to water damaged stairs and a wall in the garage. The property condition report makes no comment about the stairs. The tenants provided photos showing the stairs were already water damaged at the start of tenancy and explained that the hole was caused when the hot water cylinder was replaced. The landlord did not carry out any inspections during the tenancy and only noticed the hole at the end of the tenancy. I am more persuaded by the tenants’ submission. The landlord has not proved this claim and it is dismissed.

There is a claim for replacement fly screens. The landlord provided me with good photos and referred me to the property condition report signed by both parties. The tenants said the screens were worn when they moved in and had been subjected to storms and strong winds during the tenancy. I am more persuaded by the tenants’ submission because the screens look old and fair wear and tear is a reasonable explanation for the damage. This claim is dismissed. Other orders

I have sent a request to the Bond Centre for the refund of the bond.

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the lanaord is the most successful party. The tenants’ names will be published because there is public interest when tenants have to pay compensation. See 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5031109 — net $280.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to the oven	$253.00	Repairs to the oven
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$280.00
Bond	$2,792.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$280.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Kamaljit Singh and Emereency Khyreim to pay [The landlord/s] $280.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,792.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $280.00 Kamaljit Singh and Emereency Khyreim: $2,512.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
There is a claim for replacement carpet. The landlord’s insurer agreed to pay for new carpet, less an excess in every room. The claim is for $3500. I note that where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The tenants do not agree to the claim.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. He has provided me with a property condition report from the start of the tenancy and six photos of the stained carpet taken at the end of the tenancy. I do not have any photos of whole rooms to provide context. I do not know if the photos are of six different rooms. I do not accept that the insurer paying out is proof the tenant caused careless or intentional damage because I do not have a copy of the report from the insurance assessor. I am not persuaded by these six photos that the tenant should pay for replacement carpet. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for repairs to an oven. The landlord said there was intentional damage. The tenant replied that the glass shattered while cooking but this was never reported to the landlord. It seems most likely to me there was careless or intentional damage and the tenants should pay for the repair.
There is a claim for repairs to water damaged stairs and a wall in the garage. The property condition report makes no comment about the stairs. The tenants provided photos showing the stairs were already water damaged at the start of tenancy and explained that the hole was caused when the hot water cylinder was replaced. The landlord did not carry out any inspections during the tenancy and only noticed the hole at the end of the tenancy. I am more persuaded by the tenants’ submission. The landlord has not proved this claim and it is dismissed.
There is a claim for replacement fly screens. The landlord provided me with good photos and referred me to the property condition report signed by both parties. The tenants said the screens were worn when they moved in and had been subjected to storms and strong winds during the tenancy. I am more persuaded by the tenants’ submission because the screens look old and fair wear and tear is a reasonable explanation for the damage. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
I have sent a request to the Bond Centre for the refund of the bond.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the lanaord is the most successful party. The tenants’ names will be published because there is public interest when tenants have to pay compensation. See 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5031109 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 3, 95 Olsen Avenue, Hillsborough, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5031109 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 3, 95 Olsen Avenue, Hillsborough, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions